I now pronounce you Husband and ......?
Time to stir the pot a bit, get the juices flowing, have some passionate discourse!
Many know that last year, President Bush attempted to amend the the United States Constitution to add a change to our sacred document stating that marriage is between a man and a woman. Imagine, the U.S. Constitution changed! To me, althrough imperfectly applied, the Constitution is quite brillantly written with the guarantee of many fundamental rights to Americans today.
My question is two-fold: Do you believe that the U.S. Constitution should be amended? If so, how and why? Should gay and lesbian men and women who are in committed relationships receive the same rights and protections and those who are not in such relationships? What about same sex marriage?
What counts is what you have to say and why, rather than what conclusions are reached.
This blog is designed to accept all opinions, provided they are not mean-spirited.
Read on for my opinion.
Thank you for your mind.
Many know that last year, President Bush attempted to amend the the United States Constitution to add a change to our sacred document stating that marriage is between a man and a woman. Imagine, the U.S. Constitution changed! To me, althrough imperfectly applied, the Constitution is quite brillantly written with the guarantee of many fundamental rights to Americans today.
My question is two-fold: Do you believe that the U.S. Constitution should be amended? If so, how and why? Should gay and lesbian men and women who are in committed relationships receive the same rights and protections and those who are not in such relationships? What about same sex marriage?
What counts is what you have to say and why, rather than what conclusions are reached.
This blog is designed to accept all opinions, provided they are not mean-spirited.
Read on for my opinion.
Thank you for your mind.
26 Comments:
To me, the U.S. Constitution is truly a brillant document. It was written with enough vagueness, yet some specificity so that it could guarantee certain rights to all individuals. The vagueness with which it was written, was done so purposely by our framers, so that specifics could be interpreted indivdually by state and federal courts.
The idea of amending the Constitution, at least as Bush wants, would be to make specific something which was created to be read generally completely specific to serve certain ends. I think this would not be appropriate nor an act that the framers intended at the time this precious document was written.
On the issue of rights for gay partners. In my opinon, health insurance, inheritance laws and visitation priviliges should apply to every couple regardless of their sexual orientation, just as they apply to couples who are non-gay, but qualify for benefits.
As to whether this should involve the term marriage, I will leave that up to each state to decide that issue. I believe, howerver, that no person should be discriminated against because of sexual orientation under any circumstance.
Marriage is first and foremost a legal institution, not a spiritual one. People frequently choose to *infuse* it with spirituality, but the fact remains that, in this country, you can have a legal marriage with no spiritual component, but a spiritual wedding with no legal component is not recognized as marriage. The legal contract is both necessary and sufficient; the spiritual contract is neither.
Therefore, I believe strongly that the legal rights of heterosexuals, including marriage, should not be denied to homosexuals. Marriage gives us the right to choose our adult "custodian" -- the person we entrust to carry out our wishes should we become gravely injured, the person called first if there's been an accident, the person who automatically gets our assets when we pass. Homosexual adults in particular need the right to formally appoint an adult partner/caretaker because so many of them have been mistreated by their families of origin. We all deserve the right to formalize our intimate relationship with that individual we trust most.
The constitution was written by people who came to North America with the wish of escaping religious persecution. The current administration hopes to use the constitution to increase religious persecution. I've never felt that the separation of church and state was as much a farce as I have since 2000. :-(
K,
Extemely good analysis. I had not thought of the Constitituon before, until you mentioned it, as document of religious neutrality (which one would think it is by defintion.) You are completely right when you say that now, in 2005, it is sought of as a means of moral persecution. Cases in point are those involving a woman's right to choose as well. The issue of prayer in school takes a stab at the religous persecution angle too.
Very, very intelligent analysis!
BTW: for those of you who may not know, our winterwheat uses the word, 'DH' standing for dear husband! Just thought I would clarify. I find myself using it often in correspondence, and people being too afraid to ask me what it means, but I can tell, by the context of their responses, that they are clueless.
xox
b
To answer your questions in the order you pose them:
Yes, when appropriate and/or necessary. (But obviously this has been done in the past, so it's not like it's unprecedented; what's the big deal?)
I am sure about the "how", but not about the "why". But I'd rather NOT see it amended to define marriage/nationally prohibit homosexual marriage. Still, I feel strongly enough about the issue to add: If that's what it takes...
No. If by "same rights" you mean legal recognition equivalent to heterosexual marriage. If this is not what you mean, then you need to be more specific here.
"health insurance"
I would think private health insurers would see it as in their best interest to extend benefits to same sex partners, as it would seem to better serve their total (potential) customer base. But it is up to them, and government should not require them to do it.
"inheritance laws"
A simple will can take care of this.
"visitation priviliges"
This is usually mentioned in connection with a hospital stay. I honestly find this absurd. Why would a hospital deny visitation rights? How big of a problem is this, really? Are we expected to believe there are no ways of dealing with this other than recognizing homosexual marriage?
You forgot to mention spousal discounts on auto insurance -- I've also seen this.
And there you have it: aside from the purely emotional/fairness argument, this is pretty much the entire parcel of reasons we are given as to why we as a society ought to undergo a major moral inversion (if you oppose this then you are not a nice person) and agree to regard homosexual marriage (yuck) as legally equivalent to heterosexual marriage.
It seems to me the case is extraordinarily weak.
"basic rights"
Marriage is not some kind of 'basic right'. A society is free to define marriage, and regulate it legally, as it sees fit, i.e. according to what it sees as in its own best interest.
The primary purpose of marriage, the embodiment and heart of which is commitment ('until death do you part'), is to provide a stable environment for the raising of children. Which is definitely in the best interest of society.
Homosexuality is aberrant, it is abnormal -- it cannot lead to procreation.
Also, it offends traditional notions of (Christian) morality. However, I don't wish to, and feel I really don't need to, emphasize this.
I am a decent human being, and in general, I have no problem at all with 'gay rights'. Although I personally would prefer that gays keep one foot in the closet, i.e. refrain from things like public displays of affection, which makes me (and most people, I believe) uncomfortable. If I believed 'hate crime' laws should exist (I don't), I would favor gays being covered.
But I absolutely draw the line at 1) full, equivalent recognition of homosexual marriage, and 2) allowing homosexuals to adopt children.
And I cannot see anything ever changing my mind.
Jonniker,
It is so great to see you here. Thank you for your spirited post.
Anonymous:
Thank you as well for your well thought out, clearly reasoned, and respected answers. Although I may not agree with what you have said, point by point, I do respect your thinking.
One question, however: why do you choose to post anonymously?
There should be no shame or judgment in holding your beliefs, certainly not from me, nor any of the people who have posted, I am certain to say. Why 'stay in the closet' as you so eloquently asked yourself?
Perhaps!
But I do have some questions, as I think anoynomous made some interesting points.
I am not a Christan, but have the following inquiries nevertheless.
From what I know, Jesus was a prophet, probably like a Rabbi, someone to whom others flocked to as he had great appeal.
I wonder what Jesus thought about tolerance towards others? Did he accept others for who they were, even if different from himself?
Did he encourage, promote or believe in lies? How would he have reacted if someone told him that we were going to war to invade a country on the premise that there were WMD, and afterwards he found out that there were none? What would he have thought?
People say that something is Christan, but I do not understand what that means. If they mean something that Jesus himself would have done, such as be tolerant of others and truthful, then perhaps this label is a misnomer.
As Christians, we are told to love our neighbors, and we are also supposed to speak in truth and love.
Loving someone does not mean to blindly approve of everything they do.
"Tolerance" does not equal "embracing and condoning."
In order for anyone -- ANYONE -- to have a values and belief system, it is imperative to use discernment and make decisions about what is right and wrong.
I am not addressing the specific questions in Barbara's post -- I merely want to point out that I find it amazing that when Christians stand firm in their beliefs, they are accused of being intolerant, biggoted, and close- minded.
Christians are not forcing anyone to do anything they don't want to do...be gay or don't. But conversely, don't FORCE us to ACCEPT behavior that we truly feel is wrong.
This doesn't mean we don't have friends and family that are gay..and that we don't love them. My husband and I were introduced by a very dear college friend who is gay. We lived in LA for awhile and worked with and had many good friends who are gay. We have family members who are gay.
The point is -- we LOVE them as people and don't pick and choose who we associate with based on their sexual orientation, even though we disagree with that part of their lifestyles. I am sure there parts of our lifestyle that they disagree with!
All that to say, that the individual person is more important than the issue, and I think that the public debate has become so much about the issue, that we have forgotten that there are beautiful, sensitive, talented and wonderful people at the heart of the issue.
Whit:
You are 100 percent right when you say that individuals should not be forced to accept behavior that you feel is wrong. I think that applies across the board, in my opinon. And yes, we do forget about people, and become more concerned with labels most of the time.
I wish someone would answer the question I have posed about Jesus only because I wonder how Christan ideology deals with this issue.
Merlot: I am so happy you have joined the discussion, and your two cents are worth much more than you know.
What is beautiful is that we can all agree to disagree, but speak our minds as we desire. Isn't that what makes America such a special place after all?
I think the way to answer what Jesus would do is to read the Gospels and see how He Himself dealt with people. He treated them with love and respect and looked at their hearts before their actions. But He also never backed down in calling out actions and behaviors that are unacceptable...but I think the reconciliation between what is acceptable and is not can best be found during a heart-to-heart between an individual and Jesus through prayer...and just digging into the scripture and finding out for themselves instead of having someone else distill scripture for them.
I'm not a theologian and don't pretend to be one...I am learning along the way myself. There are many people who are more learned than I...
Well, Whilt. You have taught me quite a bit from your posts, and I thank you for your answer.
I am a Jew and have not read the New Testement. Not because it would not yield some interesting information, just because it has not been presented to me before. So I rely on others to help me understand its meaning.
Barbara, we share a rich heritage and history in the Old Testament. As I said, I am not an expert or a theologian, I can only express what I have found and how my heart has been transformed (and is continuously being transformed).
As people, we simply don't have the power to change anyone or to effect change in people. I think what we can do is be loving and compassionate and simply share our lives with others and enter into honest and thoughtful and respectful conversations...which you are obviously so very, very gifted at. (I even mentioned you in my blog for the day.)
I think I am going to enjoy dropping in and sharing the journey of life with thinkers such as you and your guests.
Thank you for this provocative and fascinating subject, Barbara.
First of all, to be a Christian means to me, to see the divine (to see Christ) in every human being, since in Genesis, the Creator states plainly, "Let US make man in our own image." Why does the Creator speak in the plural? This is regarded in Catholicism as the first indication of the Trinity, Father, Son, and Spirit.
That being said, if we are indeed created in the image of the Creator, we are to seek and find the Creator in everyone, no matter how odius or repulsive.
Christ instructed us to 'love one another as I have loved you.' That love was unconditional. It is evident in reading the New Testament that Jesus constantly extended himself and his love to those who were outcasts, people considered unacceptable by their society. His disciples included people from all walks of life, and many women as well. As many times as I have studied His teachings, I have never come across any statements about gays or straights for that matter.
Now, having said that, on to the Constitution and 'gay marriage'. I would propose a 'legal contract' or 'legal union' for gay people, for legal purposes of inheritance and last wishes, or what heterosexual married couples obtain legally when they get married.
I often wonder why the idea of gay marriages does not bother me. I guess it is because it does not concern me at all what other people do. I've had many wonderful gay friends over my lifetime. People do not choose to be gay. They are born that way.
And as such, going back to my reference to Genesis, they are all made in the image of the same Creator, just as I am.
As for the teachings of my particular religion, Catholicism, the church does not turn its back on gay people, but it does state that the 'act' of homosexuals having sex is wrong.
I don't believe this will change. But what I do know for sure is this, at my particular parish of over 10,000 persons and over 3000 families, this subject is not an issue at all. If there are gay people or gay couples in our parish, no one is standing at the door with a dress of sackcloth and ashes for them to wear.
Thanks again, Barbara! I do not say here that I am an authority on Catholicism, but I am well-educated in my faith and I am also a Catholic educator, with full certification to teach the faith.
This is a wonderful discussion, is there anything else that anyone wants to ask me? I will be happy to do my best to answer.
Patti,
I thank you for sucheloquent and beautiful statements.
Anonymous states that homosexuality offends notions of Christian morality.
Both you and Whit (who is delightful by the way) have taught me today, that Christan morality is not so much about what is morally right, but deals with the message of love and acceptance.
I know very little about Jesus and Christanity. What I do know about Jesus,however, is that he was a compasionate human being. This is why it has been difficult for me to understand how people claim that they are 'good Christans' yet turn around and be mean and non-accepting of others who do not share their way of thinking.
What I have learned today is that when someone says he/she is a Christan, it does not necessarly mean that he/she judges, condemns or looks harshly on others, and statements, such as homosexuality is immoral and abberent is not a belief shared by all who claim to be of Christan belif.
Thank you so much.
Thanks, Barbara.
I have to add the obvious here. I've been a liberal since the days when I campaigned and worked for Eugene McCarthy, before I was even old enough to vote for him.
My 12 step program has taught me to be not just tolerant of others who are different from me, or believe different things, but to embrace differences as gifts we give to each other.
I think I'm pretty lucky!
There is an excellent book by Rabbi Steven Greenberg Called, Wrestling with God & Men: Homosexuality in the Jewish Tradition. He explores the Biblical meaning of birth and desire, and examines the section in the Bible that says, "man shall not lay with man," and what its interpretation is in today's society. I have not read this book, but do own it. Although it does not deal with the question posed about the Constitution and gay partners and marriages, it seemed noteworthy to mention.
I would love to read that book! May I borrow it when you are done?
Jonniker, those are my thoughts as well. I need to spend my time thinking of how to be a better me. I have no business in other people's lives, or how they choose to lead them. I try to concern myself with how I treat others, not how I would judge them.
Thanks for your thoughtful posts as well.
I think it is a shame that committed adults need the government's permission to have a relationship in the first place. It is a "constitutional" issue because of the "full faith and credit" clause, allowing that marriages in one state must be recognized in another.
Why is it that people get married in Church, but divorced in Court?
Perhaps "all" marriages should be civil, rather than religious ceremonies. Better yet, why call these relationships "marriage" in the first place? Think about it. If there were no marriages, there wouldn't be any divorces.
Why not just call these relationships "commitments," and everyone going in the door signs a pre-commitment agreement (contract) -- couldn't that just simplify everything? After all, all relationships are hard enough as it is . . . we need something less stressful.
Anonymous:
Complete agreement on the issue of the necessity of less stress in our personal lives.
This, however, does not address the issue regarding whether there should be a constitutonal amendment. If the U.S. Constitution is amended, on the one hand, you are saying that we need more government: to decide what constitutes a marriage and how it is defined. How a marriage is consumated and what type of cermoney is conducted is not about government, but personal choice.
If we have a system of government that separates church from state, and if the state intends to assert its right to govern relationships such as marriage, then by definition, church has no part to play in the marriage of individuals. This does not preclude people from having religious ceremonies, but religious ceremonies that can only be undone in courts are NOT a separation of church and state. When church is no longer involved as the codifier of marriage, then there can be no religious issue respecting same sex vs. heterosexual unions. It is proper that state law determine the morality of human relationships.
The constitution does not need amendment unless we presume that a gay married couple from a state that recognizes homosexual unions could experience discrimination in a state that does not. The question should be rephrased: Should the constitution be amended to protect marriage as it is defined in the jurisdiction in which it was effected?
"...homosexuality as repugnant or unnatural. It is neither."
Oh come on!
Of course whether one sees it as "repugnant" or not is a matter of personal feeling, or perhaps personal expression.
I find the mental image of male homosexual sex "repugnant"; less so for two women (go figure).
"They are born that way."
Probably; it is difficult for me to imagine that someone would make such a choice.
And I suppose one could say in this sense homosexuality is not "unnatural", yet it is most definitely aberrant and abnormal, both in a biological sense AND in a social context. It cannot and does not contribute to the propagation of the species, which relates to the social irrelevancy of homosexual marriage as a relationship society should endorse. No (truly honest) parent wants to see littly Johnny grow up to 'marry' another man; consider that if you're still having trouble finding differences between heterosexual and homosexual marriage.
"I do think that gay couples should have the right to adoption. There are too many children who need loving homes."
It must be that people who have this view are thinking of very young children. I tend to think of what will happen when the child is older; one can just imagine the teenage taunts: 'So who bottomed last nite?' Why burden a child with all of that? Isn't growing up difficult enough as it is?
As a practical matter, why not try a BIG boost in financial incentives for adoption and foster parenting? (Wouldn't that have been a better use for all the money spent destroying Iraq?)
Again: Are we to believe there are no other (at least tryable) solutions to that problem other than allowing gays to adopt?
Anyway, I find it a little unnerving that I even have to say it is wholly improper to allow two men to adopt a child (yuck). (Less so for two women; again, go figure, but you don't have to go so far this time.)
I post anonymously because the first and only time I tried to sign up for a blogger ID the one I like to use was already taken, and at the time I was too lazy to think of another one. But in reality aren't most posters here anonymous?
Thank you for your comments.
I agree with your assessment that gays, albeit man or women should have the right to adoption. In my line of work, I have seen many children placed in stable, homes whose parents are homosexual. This being said, it is because they are removed from an abusive home of a hetrosexual couple.
Not all homosexual couples want marriage, just as not all hetrosexual couples do not either, for a number of reasons. My inital question dealt with the validity of a constitutional amendment and the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman.
I know you say homosexuality is aberrant, unnatural. In my opinion child abuse, sexual abuse, rape and murder are far more abberant and damaging than any act that could occur between consenting adults.
"I agree with your assessment that gays, albeit man or women should have the right to adoption."
But I didn't say that; in fact I ABSOLUTELY OPPOSE adoption by homosexuals, whether male or female. I thought that was clear? And I don't understand your use of the word "albeit" here.
"far more abberant and damaging"
The problem here is society isn't being asked to endorse/approve of the things you mention. Which I agree are FAR WORSE than homosexuality; in fact they are heinous crimes! And so should not be mentioned in the same context as homosexuality; I wouldn't have done it.
We can all agree to disagree, provided that it is done with mutual respect and good will.
Thank you for your points of view.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home